I have sent a letter to School District Supt. Dave LaRose about being frozen out of District “stakeholder” meetings.
I also sent a copy to all the School Board members.
I wonder how they go about determining who is a “stakeholder.”
You have to admit that I go to more meetings of the School Board than some of the other so called “stakeholders.” In addition, where are the former candidates who ran and former Board members?
What do you think the chances are of me getting on the Oversight Committee? This notion of “transparency” seems to be a joke.
Here is the letter:
Dear Mr. LaRose,
Please let me know why I am not considered as a “stakeholder.”
If you can invite George Laase to a “District meeting,” how can you consider him a “stakeholder” and not me.
Is it because I brought up the embarrassing fact that the District was initially to only consider demolishing the Natatorium and building a “multi-purpose” room for 80 students at a cost of $10.3 million while it would only cost $3 million to fix the pool?
As a former School Board candidate who, by the way, attends more meetings than some of the “other stakeholders,” I think I have more qualifications to be considered a stakeholder.
In addition, I am a member of “Friends of the Culver City Natatorium,” and one of the prime advocates for the Natatorium. I have collected over 2,000 signatures supporting the fixing of the Natatorium . Over 500 of these people came out to vote for me.
What is your criteria for defining who a “stakeholder” is.
I think “freezing” me out of the bond participation is a mistake and sets a bad precedent for the so-called “transparency” of the District.
Sincerely yours.
Mr. Zirgulis may be contacted at zirgulisr@yahoo.com
